good practise node - sagp02

SOUTH ASIAPro Poor Livestock Policy Programme

Good Practice Code: SAGP02

REGION : South AsiaCOUNTRY : IndiaSTATE : Rajasthan DISTRICT : Ajmer, Bhilwara, Bundi, Udaipur

BRACBRAC Centre75 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212BANGLADESHTel: +880 2 8824180-7 Extn: 2311Fax: +880 2 8823542, 8826448E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Department of LivestockMinistry of AgricultureThimpuBHUTANTel: +975 (0) 2 351102Fax: +975 (0) 2 322094, 351222E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

BAIF Development Research FoundationDr. Manibhai Desai Nagar, NH 4Warje, Pune 411058, INDIATel: +91 (0) 20 25231661Fax: +91 (0) 20 25231662E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Partnering Institutions

SOUTH ASIA Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme

About this Good Practice

An effective NGO-Community Partnership changes the landscape of a typical

dryland ecosystem in five districts in Rajasthan by increasing fodder biomass,

grasses, shrubs, trees, water levels and positively impacting on overall livestock

productivity. Unpacking this causality, this Good Practice reveals how management

of village dynamics, building awareness, finding local solutions and building

technical acumen can create ownership and equity in Common Property Resource

management.

Good Practice Note

A j o i n t i n i t i a t i v e o f N D D B a n d FA O


Regional Office:

New Delhi - 110029, INDIATel: +91 (0) 11 2619 7851 / 7649 • Fax: +91 (0) 11 2618 9122

E-mail: [email protected]: www.sapplpp.org

NDDB House (6th Floor) PB 4906, Safdarjang Enclave

For copies of this publication, kindly contact the Regional Office or the Partnering Institutions

Innovations in Common LandDevelopment

The NDDB-FAO South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme (SA-PPLPP) SA

PPLPP is a unique livestock development program that aims to ‘to ensure that the

interests of poor livestock keepers are reflected in national as well as international

policies and programs affecting their livelihoods’. It endeavors to do so by a) creating

spaces for and facilitating dialogue among the actors playing a direct and indirect role

in the livestock sector of South Asia, and b) drawing from and using lessons from field

experiences to influence livestock-related policies, programmatic and institutional

changes towards the benefit of poor fe/male livestock keepers in the region.

To access SA PPLPP publications and other information resources, please visit our website at

http://www.sapplpp.org

FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) works towards the ecological restoration

and conservation of land and water resources, in conserving the uplands and other

eco-fragile, degraded and marginalised zones of the country and to set in place the

processes of co-ordinated human effort and governance to achieve this objective. It

undertakes work, either directly or with and through a range of democratic village

institutions, their federal bodies, and civil society organisations, (set up) through

initiatives that are ecologically sustainable, socially and economically equitable. The

foundation strives for a future that is based on a holistic understanding of the

principles that govern the interrelationships of various life forms and natural systems.

The central character of their efforts lie in intertwining principles of nature

conservation and local self governance in order to accelerate efforts on ecological

restoration and improve the living conditions of the poor. Over the years FES activities

have spread to 1402 village institutions in 26 districts of seven states. They are

presently assisting communities in protecting 96,933 hectares of revenue ‘wastelands’,

degraded forest lands, and Panchayat grazing lands, and crafting rules and regulations

in managing and governing the natural resources, common land and water bodies in

particular.

For more information on FES, kindly visit their website at http://www.fes.org.in/

BAIF Development Research Foundation’s mission is to create opportunities of

gainful self-employment for rural families, especially disadvantaged sections, ensuring

sustainable livelihood, enriched environment, improved quality of life and good human

values. This is being achieved through development research, effective use of local

resources, extension of appropriate technologies and upgradation of skills and

capabilities with community participation. BAIF is a non-political, secular and

professionally managed organisation. Various programmes are implemented by BAIF

and its Associate Organisations in more than 47,000 villages in Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan,

Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Jharkhand.

For more information on BAIF, kindly visit their website at http://www.baif.org.in/

GOOD PRACTICE OWNER and GOOD PRACTICE CHAMPIONS

A Good Practice (GP) Owner is a person/group of individuals and/or institution that plays

a crucial role in the GP. Thus, a GP owner understands all the ins and outs of the GP and is

often the initiator of GP.

Others involved in the Practice (not considered GP Owners) may be invited to assist in the

filtering and writing process. Such persons, who have insights into what makes the GP pro-

poor, are better-positioned to help influence policies. Thus, with their thorough

understanding of the GP, they (as an individual or as a team) can function as GP

Champions.

GoodPracticeOwners

FOUNDATION FOR ECOLOGICAL SECURITY

BAIF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH FOUNDATION

GoodPracticeChampions

Authors: Sanjay Joshie, Rahul Chaturvedi, B.R. Patil

Reviewers: Amita Shah, Jagdeesh Rao, K.G. Tejwani,Lucy Maarse, Rita Brara

Content Editors: B.R. Patil, Lucy Maarse, Sanjay Joshie, Sheila Koyyana

Photo Credits: Foundation for Ecological Security

Publisher: South Asia Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme, a joint initiative of NDDB and FAO

Suggested Citation: SA PPLPP (2009) Code: SAGP02, “Innovations in Common Land Development: Strengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers”. Good Practice Note, Delhi, India

Design & Layout: Kriti Team, http://krititeam.blogspot.com

Printing: Satyam Grafix

SA PPLPP 2009

Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the National Dairy Development Board of India (NDDB) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions expressed are solely of the author(s) and reviewer(s) and do not constitute in any way the official position of the NDDB or the FAO.

Reproduction and dissemination of material in this Good Practice Note for educational or non-commercial purposes are authorised without any prior written permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this Good Practice Note for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission from the copyright holders.

Ajay Saxena, B.P. Singh, Subrat, Suresh Parashar,Harnath K

Contributors:

Innovations in Common Land DevelopmentStrengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers

Innovat ions in Common Land Development 1

Contents

I. Basic Information on the Good Practice 3

II. The Innovation in the Good Practice 10

III. The Practice of the 'Good Practice' 12

IV. Origin of the Good Practice 18

V. Lessons Learnt 22

VI. Conclusion 24

3Innovations in Common Land Development

Context

The location is broadly classified as semi arid areas with average rainfall between 400-650 mm which is spread over four months from June to September. With high inter-year variation and erratic spread of rainy days drought is a common feature. Located in the confluence of Aravali and Vindhyan mountain ranges the topography varies from uplands to undulating landscape. Commons, including forest lands, constitute 30-80% of a village geographical area. Wide-ranging contributions from the commons to village economy can be seen in this context – from food, fodder and timber to benefit flows to agriculture and animal husbandry, to ecological services of resource conservation, recharge of ground water and sustainability of agro-ecological systems.

Livelihoods of communities inhabiting these areas primarily depend on agriculture and livestock keeping. Broadly the production system can be classified as a mixed farming system with agriculture and livestock playing a complementary and synergetic role. Landless, marginal and small farmers constitute more than 80% of the rural households. Households below poverty line constitute 20-44% of the total households. These households keep a significant share of total livestock, which is mainly dependent on crop residue and fodder derived from village commons. They also keep around 20-30% of there farm land as beeds which is used for grazing and meeting fodder requirement of their livestock. With increasing land fragmentation there has also been a conversion of the beed lands for cropping which has further increased the reliance on commons.

Degradation and decline of common property resources has major consequences for the livelihoods of many communities. One of the resultant effects is the vicious cycle of resource degradation with increased livestock density on the land, a decrease of pasture and water available per animal, an inevitable decline in the condition of the livestock, and degradation of commons. Degradation and decline of common property resources also accentuates soil erosion, soil nutrient depletion, moisture stress, deforestation, bio-diversity loss, reduced grazing space, forage scarcity, etc. and negatively effects agriculture and animal husbandry.

Communities Reached

The communities are mainly agro-pastoralists who belong to tribal and non-tribal groups. Tribal communities are mainly located in the southern district of Udaipur with a more heterogeneous caste community inhabiting the other districts. Gujjar, Balai, Meena, Bhil, Jat, Rajput are some of the major caste categories found in these locations.

All communities residing in a village or the defined boundary of an institution are included in the village institutions formed for common property resource management. With majority of the households having very small landholdings the work primarily focuses on the needs and priorities of these groups, with specific attention to very poor households (BPL families, disadvantaged sections, landless).

More than 90% of the households keep livestock, which is composed of cattle, buffalo, goat and sheep holding. Landless, marginal and small farmers keep around 80% of the total bovine and around 85% of the total ovine population, signifying the importance and equity

1 Year it started: in 1986 by Foundation

for Ecological Security (FES) and

in 1991 by BAIF.

1I. Basic Information on the Good Practice

component of livestock ownership. On an average a marginal farmer keeps around 4 large ruminants and 7-8 goats or sheep. Women are primarily engaged in livestock keeping with their work spread from taking the animals out for grazing, to meeting their water requirements to regular maintenance and upkeep. With depletion of common property resources they face increasing hardships to graze their livestock and meet the energy needs of their household. In addressing common land development their inclusion and providing them with a platform for decision-making is an important objective of the practice.

Estimated Number of households

FES is associated with 439 villages spread across 5 districts in Rajasthan benefiting around 40000 families. BAIF has worked on common lands in 76 villages benefiting around 7000 families.

Qualitative Indicators

Qualitative impact of common land development on livelihoods of poor households and livestock keepers can be seen in:

a. Improvement in access and assurance to products and services derived from commons with emergence of a strong collective foundation and improvement in ecological foundation.

b. Reduced resource conflict, previously visible in scarcity period where the socially and economically powerful gained, with improvement in the resources base.

c. Reduced risks and vulnerability to fodder scarcity helping poor livestock keepers to invest resources for livestock development with very low input costs.

d. Strengthened local governance of common property resources helps check undesirable individualistic decision-making (encroachment, illegal mining, cutting down of trees, etc.), which is detrimental to the livelihoods of rural poor.

e. Strengthened institutional spaces for poor households enable them to actively participate in decision making processes with its impact on social-economic-political factors.

f. Improved environmental services from community managed commons in terms of reduced soil erosion, increased water availability through prolonged surface flows and increased recharge, nutrient flows etc., strengthening the different livelihood components.

g. Improved capabilities to adapt to changing circumstances, scale developmental efforts and initiate actions which are pro-poor.

Quantitative Indicators

a. Increased fodder availability: There is an increase in availability of grass, tree and shrub leaves from protected commons in comparison to a non-governed common. Grass biomass availability increases from a low of 0.26 ton/ha to a high of 8.5 ton/ha based on the condition and location of commons. Grass cover increased from 50% to 80% with a shift in composition towards more palatable species (from 35% to 70%). Trees per ha increases from a low of 29 trees/ha to a high of 289 tree per/ha. Simultaneously the protection of commons helped in regeneration of more trees per ha providing more tree leaves each year.

4 G O O D P R A C T I C E N O T E • C O D E : S A G P 0 2

T able 1: Trees and shrubs per ha A cross Study V illages

V illage Dist rict T rees with diameter

more than 10 cm T rees wit h diameter

less than 10 cm Shrub

C ontrol A jmer 29 286 571

Protected plots

FES supported villages

Thoria A jmer 256 275 950

Bharanda Bhilwara 114 5,600 0

Amaritya Bhilwara 175 2,400 50

Sanjadi ka Badiya Bhilwara 154 831 1,046

Saredi kheda Bhilwara 289 533 311

Dheemr i U daipur 150 2,050 1,350

C heetrawas U daipur 205 1,720 1,640

BA IF supported villages

Jodha ka kheda Bhilwara 100 360 400

Gudha G okalpura Bundi 170 320 440


With increased grass production and tree coverage, palatable fodder availability in terms of grasses and lopped tree leaves from protected commons increased manifold. Increased fodder availability from different sources helped livestock keepers meet the feed and fodder requirement of their livestock across different time periods.

T able 2: Palatable fodder from protected commons

Villages T ree

leaves# (ton/ha)

Shrub leaves

(ton/ha)

Grass/Herb (ton/ha)

Total Palatable biomass (ton/ha)

T otal palatable biomass

from non-governed commons (ton/ha)

%increase in

availability of palatable biomass per

ha

FES supported villages Thoria* 0.59 0.23 0.92 1.74 0.62 180.45 Dhuwariya* 0.45 0.27 0.85 1.57 0.62 153.05 Bharanda* 0.56 1.03 0.22 1.81 1.274 41.84 A maritya* 0.63 0.44 0.58 1.65 0.814 102.83 Sanjadi Ka* Badia

0.68 0.14 1.32 2.14 1.026 108.87

Saredi Kheda *

0.97 0.14 0.98 2.09 0.54 287.04

Dhimri 0.54 0.11 5.95 6.60 0.223 2859.64 Cheetrawas 9.88 0.03 3.94 13.85 4.222 228.07 BA IF supported villages Jodhakheda* 0.67 0.10 0.57 1.34 0.191 599.78 Gudha Gokulpura*

0.28 0.03 0.42 0.73 0.433 68.59

#T ree leaves have been calculated at 5% of total standing biomass.

* Villages where the gr ass biomass estimation coincided with the grazing period have result ed in the underestimation of gr ass biomass.

b. Increased value of resources on commons: Value of standing biomass on protected commons ranged between Rs 32000 per ha to Rs 365000 per ha. On an average the incremental value comes to around Rs. 47,000 per hectare in comparison to a non-governed area which had a value of Rs 5100 per ha. In monetary terms this translates into a value of Rs 3.13 lakhs per household in these villages. Of this Rs. 2.79 lakhs come from trees whereas a smaller contribution come from shrubs (Rs. 0.3 lakh) and grass (Rs.0.04 lakh). It may be noted that while the households could use a small proportion of the biomass from trees and shrubs for direct consumption, much of the grass and leaf biomass is available for direct use. The value of grass biomass per household varies from Rs. 1000/- Rs. 9,000/- per annum. In most of the villages taking into consideration that grass values are underestimated, as the survey period coincided with the grazing period these make significant contributions to poor livestock keepers.

c. Positive changes in land use and land cover: Protection and regeneration of commons with work to check runoff of water significantly changes the land use and cover in the villages. This is more visible if the work is concentrated in a contiguous patch, for example a watershed. Analysis of Thoria watershed over different time periods gives strong evidence that if biophysical interventions and institutional development is promoted on commons in a contiguous patch there are dynamic changes in the biophysical environment.

This trend was also seen in other villages where work on common property resources of land and water not only improved the overall biomass growth on common land areas, but also influenced the agricultural area, through increased water availability.

d. Trends in livestock at village level: Livestock trends observed over two time periods show a mixed trend of livestock growth. This has been summarised in Table 3. Some common trends which can be observed at village level are:

1. Reduction in cattle population with preference towards buffalo keeping.

2. Preference towards quality cattle breeds reflected in increased population of cattle in villages with good indigenous breeds (Gir) and trends towards cross-bred cattle.

3. Increased goat population across most of the villages.

4. Increased sheep population in villages where communities like Gujjar are the dominant category.

Figure 1: Change in Landuse/cover of Thoria watershed from 1993 to 2006

Open Forest Mixed degradedForest

Scrubland Agri. Single Crop Agri Duble Crop Wasteland

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

1993

2002

2006

(Are

a in

ha)



Table 3: Trends in livestock across Study Villages in Rajasthan

Livestock Increase Decrease Remarkscategory

1. Cattle • Increase in 2 • Decrease in 8 Villages such as Thoria and villages villages of grazing lands development have been complimented

with improved water availability through watersheddevelopment works; and where there were goodindigenous breed and support of dairy cooperative has seen trends towards increase in cattle population.Across other villages there has been a decrease in cattle population with trends towards reduction in non-descript and unproductive livestock and shift towards other livestock.

2. Cross • Increase in 4 Villages supported by BAIF have witnessed a rapid bred villages increase in population of cross-bred cattle with a Cattle sharp reduction in population of non-descript cattle.

Village which are close to market centers have also shown introduction of cross-bred cattle.

3. Buffalo • Increase in 5 • Decrease in 2 Buffalo population has increased replacing cattle with villages villages per annum growth rate between 5-8% is observed in

• Stable population where buffalo population has increased. in ??village

4. Goat • Increase in 8 • Decrease in 1 With increased palatable tree and shrub biomass goat • Stable population vellages population has uniformly increased across all villages with

in 1 villages per annum growth between 1.3-12.3% per annum.

5. Sheep • Increased in 5 • Decreased in villages Growth in sheep population in 5 villages has villages 5 villages ranged between 6-12% per annum. Increased sheep

population is observed in villages where traditional sheep rearers like Gujjar who still are maintaining the semi pastoralist life style are the dominant population. However simultaneously with increasing migration and preference towards other livestock there has been a decreasing preference for sheep keeping.

Dhuwadia where efforts

e. Livestock growth across different groups: In comparison to the State average the study villages show on an average higher livestock population across different landholding categories. This trend reflects the importance of availability of commons and enhanced fodder and feed availability from CPR in supporting more livestock in these villages.

Table 4: Additional Livestock Possibilities: Difference in livestock holding between Study villages and Rajasthan average figures (NSSOdata)

Land Marginal Small Medium Large

Cattle 4.3 1.6 2.2 1.6 0.3

Buffalo 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.4

Total Bovine 4.8 1.6 2.5 1.6 1.7

Total ovine 6.9 4.0 7.9 5.9 2.1

less

Secondly, a comparison of livestock trends in these villages over two time periods (2002, 2007-8) shows some interesting results. In comparison to a more uniform trend of additional l i v e s t o c k k e e p i n g w i t h improvement in CPRs (Table 5) the following table shows a mixed trend across landholding categories and also preferences towards livestock keeping.

With landless, marginal and small farmers increasing their holdings, the medium and large farmers show a trend of decrease in livestock holding, even though it still remains higher in comparison to poor livestock keepers. This pattern also changes significantly the distribution of livestock holdings across the households. While as a group of landless, marginal and small farmers gain, there is substantial reduction in holdings of medium and large farmers.

As a whole the trend reflects that improvement in CPRs enables landless and marginal farmers to increase their livestock holdings.

In the process they also gain by improved distribution in their favour, which helps them as a group to use the resources in more equitable terms.

f. Impact on milk production: The proportion of households reporting increase in milk production was 50 per cent of the sample household in the villages. The surveyed households (100% of households) attributed the increase in milk production to increased fodder availability. Discussions with different groups also highlighted the role of dairy cooperative societies in providing services and market linkage, improved water availability and improvement in cattle breed as other important factors in influencing growth in milk production, clearly reflected in Thoria village where the milk sale figures of the DCS and private dairies indicate a consistent growth rate despite low rainfall years. Figure 2 also shows that with improved fodder availability and institutional support of dairy, the vulnerability in livestock sector especially for the poor livestock keeper can be reduced and even in extreme low rainfall years their livestock system remains strong-footed.

Table 5: Additional Livestock Possibilities: Study villages between 2002-2007

Landless Marginal Small Medium Large

Cattle 3.1 0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -1.9

Buffalo -0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5

Total Bovine 2.6 0.5 -0.2 0.0 -1.4

Goat 1.4 0.5 1.2 0.0 1.3

Sheep 0.1 1.2 0.8 -2.9 -2.2

Total ovine 1.5 1.7 2.0 -2.9 -1.0

Table 6: Changes in distribution of livestock holdings (2002-2007) (figures represent the

difference in % distribution over two time periods)

Landless Marginal Small Medium Large

Cattle 2.10 13.57 6.64 -8.89 -13.41

Buffalo -0.01 9.29 10.28 -6.24 -13.33

Total bovine 1.46 12.17 7.76 -8.06 -13.32

Goat 1.19 7.10 11.21 -11.00 -8.50

Sheep 0.04 23.11 15.49 -26.80 -11.84

Total ovine 0.81 13.01 12.84 -16.97 -9.69


Another interesting finding was the improved trust of villagers on the service providers for Artificial Insemination, with marginal and small farmers investing in improving their non-descript breeds. This, which has been broadly argued as an important factor to improve productivity, has also improved income earnings of poor livestock keepers who with reducing vulnerability and risks invest resources for asset improvement. This trend was visible in Jodha ka Kheda and Gudha Gokalpura villages where landless and marginal families kept more than 50% of crossbreed animals.

Figure 2: Trends in milk sale in Thoria

Milk Sale (’00 litres)Rainfall in mm

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2001

-200

2

2002

-200

3

94-9

5

95-9

6

96-9

7

97-9

8

98-9

9

99-0

0

00-0

1

2003

-200

4

2004

-200

5


II. The Innovation in the Good Practice

10

n a situation where land and water is scarce and households are increasingly facing more hardships in continuing to keep livestock, this practice helps in reviving institutional mechanisms that energise collective action towards sustainable management of community held village commons, thereby improving feed and fodder availability. This is in contrast to options, which mainly focus on privately held resources, especially farm lands, and neglect the natural resource base and the village commons further accentuating the difference between resource rich and the resource poor farmers.

The practice, recognising the multiple functions village commons play, takes a more holistic perspective of the platform the commons can provide in terms of poverty and inequality reduction through strengthening of the collective and ecological foundation.

Aspect 1: Technology

Ecologically sound regeneration: The practice while addressing the village commons, which are often degraded, aims to approximate the natural process of regeneration This is translated into maintaining the natural diversity of the ecosystem which has so far sustained the diverse needs of livestock and farming systems and promoting seeding and plantation of native species keeping in mind the various relevant variables – people's need, level of degradation, biotic pressure, institutional strength etc. – in a given situation. The focus not only helps in collective search for appropriate solutions, with community knowledge of their surroundings playing an important role, but also makes the practice cost effective and relevant for the different groups of livestock keepers in a community.

The focus is to develop a protected patch with suitable mix of grass and tree species which provides different products to livestock keepers from grass, leaves and pods meeting the feed and fodder needs of both large and small ruminants.

Regulated and rotational grazing: One of the important factors in resources degradation on commons has been of unregulated grazing by livestock keepers. The practice taking into consideration the whole village commons aims to regulate grazing pressures on different portions of commons. With some of the patches being kept open in certain periods, the other portions are protected to regenerate grasses and trees. These plots are later on opened for grazing with village deciding not only the time of opening but also the period for which it will be open for grazing based on the availability of fodder. The mechanism over a period helps in regenerating a patch of commons. With success in regenerating a patch the institutional arrangement for protection of commons is scaled on other patches. With increased growth of shrubs and trees some of the plots have been reserved only for small animals.

Aspect 2: Delivery Mechanism

Understanding that the breakdown of local village institutions in face of changing fabric of village society, unclear tenure and that the lack of enabling policy framework has contributed significantly to the deterioration of commons, the work focuses on these key dimensions to bring in changes.

Secure tenure to communities: Village commons are constituted by lands of different categories (pasture, revenue wasteland and forest lands), with differing rights of community

I

G O O D P R A C T I C E N O T E • C O D E : S A G P 0 2

to use and mange it. Providing a sound legal foothold to users' organizations is often a prerequisite for building and reviving village institutions. The work of achieving tenurial security involves active and continuous discussion with state governments and different departments who are the legal custodians of these resources.

With increasing realization of the need to conserve natural resources and the need to involve community actively in the processes of conservation, various state governments and departments through their orders and policies have provided a fair degree of tenurial security to the community through leasing of Revenue wastelands to TGCS and agreement on forest land (VFPMCs) through JFM resolution. The 73rd amendment entrusting the Panchayat Raj Institutions with local governance has also been a major instrument in further strengthening self governing institutions at local level. Gauchars and charagahs (Grazing lands) constitute a significant common property resource in many locations with its ownership and management rights vested with Gram Panchayats. These grazing lands have a fair degree of tenurial security and are being worked with after taking permissions from the Gram Panchayats.

Focus on village institutions: Strengthening traditional mechanisms, where they are surviving, and crafting new institutional arrangements, where none exist, is an essential component of the work on common property resources. It includes assisting village communities to set in place rules and regulations that are not only based on their micro-reality, but also take into consideration larger principles that govern successful common property governance. The process of each village taking the initiative, to apply itself and create a formal body of terms and conditions to govern itself by, with regard to a common property resource, is the basis for the sustainability of local institutions and is a critical step towards the act of self-governance.

Though the different actors within the village institution are primarily responsible for evolution of rules and regulations the facilitating agency also explains its work philosophy, its belief and its objective, which helps in reaching a term of reference between the agency and the village institution. These also help in clarifying the underlying rules, which would guide the village institution in developing more elaborate rules and regulations.

Aspect 3: Suitability

Common property land resources constitute on average 30% of total geographical area in Rajasthan. 84-100% of poor households depend on fodder, fuelwood and food items for these resources with around 14-23% of income derived from these resources. Various studies and trends of land use data has showed a consequent decline in CPRs due to various factors like land encroachment, land distribution, land reallocation mostly associated with the policy directives and also a lack of institutional arrangements / decay of traditional arrangements at micro level. Apart from their decline there has also been a consequent degradation of CPR areas due to increased pressure and lack of any institutional arrangements to enforce judicious use of resources. The depletion in CPR resources has also intensified the resource conflict among the different sections in which invariably the poor families lose out either in terms of denial of access to these resources or allocation of it for alternative use.

Livestock keeping in these locations is a viable option for poor households if only a significant portion of the fodder and feed resources are derived from commons. The practice, strengthening collective action and improving productivity of commons, aims to strengthen the resources base used by poor households for livestock keeping. With majority of the households belonging to marginal and small categories, a strong collective action with active participation of these households helps in making the initiative pro-poor.


Actors

Village, User groups, Farmers, Livestock keepers, Village leaders, CBOs (TGCS, CVS, VFPMC), Gram Panchayat, Neighboring village, Federations, Government (State government, Forest Department, Cooperative Department), NGOs (FES, BAIF)

Relationship between actors

Commons are resources of the whole village. In a village there are differentiated actors carrying out multiple activities and are tied to each other in a set of complex relationships guided by caste, class, gender etc. These relationships have evolved over a period of time and are also guided by the set of values and norms, which distinguishes a particular group from the other. In understanding the relationships within it is important to understand that these are also guided by the broader set of norms, rules and regulations at village or habitation level or even the broader socio-cultural boundary.

Common land development starts with the village and the facilitating agency understanding the tenure and policy arrangements over the common lands in the village. Actors like the government, its various departments and Gram Panchayat become important, as they are an essential institutional structure in influencing access to different categories over commons.

Understanding the various legal and policy provisions and based on the nature of common land category the village and the facilitation agency forms village institution/organisation. These can be a Village Forest Protection Committee which can gain rights over forest, Charagah Vikas Samiti (Pasture Land Development Committee) which can work with Gram Panchayats on pasture land in the village, Tree Growers Cooperative Society which can apply for lease of Revenue wastelands for 25 years, and also Watershed Development Committees which can under the policy and program directives address the village landscape

comprehensively.

However, even though there are policies and directives, which help to provide these institutions/organisations rights to manage and gain benefits, the process of gaining rights might take a lot of time and energy depending on how the different actors within the government work. The role of facilitating agency gains importance as its works with these different actors within the government to provide rights to the village institution. This involves negotiation and meetings at different levels of the government and its department making them aware of the policy provisions and measures, which can help communities gain rights to CPR resources and provide them incentive to invest their energy in it.

III. The Practice of the 'Good Practice'

Figure 3: Common land development forPoor Livestock Keepers

Funding Agencies:SIDA, NDDB,UNDP, SDC

Government (Revenue Deptt.,Forest Deptt., DRDA, Cooperative

Deptt. etc.,), Gram Panchayat

Application for lease, agreements

with various department,permissions to work on

Common lands

Fund flow,Programmatic

support

Facilitating Agency(BAIF, FFS)

Fund flow, Technicalsupport, institutional

support, Capacity building

Village Institution/Organization

formed (VFMC, TGCS, CVS, WDC)

Policy support, enabling

environment,fund flows

Members of the organization, constitute

sets of rules andregulations which guide

protection and benefit flow

Distribution ofbenefits (grass, tree leaves,pads, fuehwood)

Poor Live-stockKeepers


With institutions gaining right to manage common property resources the facilitating agency provides the institutions with funds to regenerate and restore their common property resources. The role of the facilitating agency is to help in collective search for appropriate solutions, which will lead to sense of ownership among the village actors of the process. Simultaneously keeping in mind the different interests in a village it should have an adequate technical understanding of the contexts, without which some actions might not be meaningful and sometimes detrimental to certain sections in the society. In planning for regeneration, the practice, as has been mentioned above, aims to approximate the natural process. An important criterion to review plans for regeneration looks at what is the objective of a certain work plan, which species are planned, what is the long term objective of it, what will be its effect on other species, whom it is going to benefit etc.- and initiate discussions around these issues within the facilitating agency and with the different actors in a village.

Another aspect of the work of the facilitating agency is to support the capacity building and institutional development of the VI formed. Village has multiple actors from political leaders to a poor landless household. The institutional design promoted by the facilitating agency has an important bearing on how the institution shapes up and also for whom it may function. Understanding the differentiated actors within a village, the work of facilitating agency is mainly to understand the relationship between different actors and pro-actively work to include all the actors, especially poor households, under the institutional gamut.

All the actors in a village constitute the members of the village organisation. These members (who are all adults, male and female above 18) form the general body of the organization. Based on the requirements of formal organisation and the need to have a group of people to coordinate the village organisation, the members constitute a management committee (also sometimes referred as executive committee or functional committee). The general body chooses the members of the management committee from the different actors: farmers, livestock keepers, women, different caste groups, BPL families, deprived sections based on their location, specific understanding of the differentiation they comprehend as a group within and also as processes facilitated by facilitating agency.

Together these groups evolve a set of rules and regulations, which guide their interaction in reference to resource created. The general body is the supreme authority in terms of finalising the rules and regulation based on the inputs from the different actors (farmers, livestock keepers, deprived and disadvantaged sections, village leaders etc.). This process of crafting rules and regulation for management of CPRs is the key element of the good practice.

Rules and regulations formation basically takes place for the following broad purposes:

a. Rules for membership of the village organisation

b. Rules for meetings and decision making

c. Rules for protection and conservation of resources

d. Rules for work (physical work supported by organisations and later on the maintenance)

e. Rules for benefit sharing

f. Rules for financial transactions

The robustness of the institution system is determined by the way rules and regulations operate. The system is characterised as robust “if it is long-living and the operational rules have been devised and modified over time according to a set of collective choice rules (which themselves might be modified more slowly over time within a set of constitutional-choice rules, which were modified, if at all, very infrequently)”.

Figure 4: Relationship within a Village organisation/institution (VI)

Members: General Body

Managemn Committee

Sets of rules and regulations

Different actors within an institution

Marginal and small farmers

FarmersBig

farmers

Farmers who want to encroach Women

Livestock keepers

Small ruminant holders

Bovine holders

Sheep rearers with large herds

Deprived sections


Rules and regulation have direct bearing on whom the institution will benefit and is a crucial process in which the facilitating agency plays major role. Though broadly the collective choice rule across villages remains the same, the operational rules/systems to put the rules in place differs across villages. The role of the facilitating agency is mainly to promote discussions against the broader set of rules and facilitate operational systems, which are mutually agreed and are sensitive to all actors. Another important aspect is to provide alternative options, examples from neighbouring villages other contexts, which provided the actors to analyse different options and choose. Table 7 summarises the different operation rules/systems across villages for membership, meeting, decision-making, work (work on commons) and protection. These rules together guide how the structural and functional aspect of the institution is shaped.

Rules for distribution of benefits have the most important consequence for the members involved. The benefit sharing arrangements depend on many factors from the broad objective of resource distribution, to the condition and objective of resource growth, to number of households and their different demands, to the monitoring and enforcement costs of sustainable resource harvesting and the different alternative options available to complement or supplement the resource distribution.

Table 8 briefly describes the different rules and regulations for resource use. Two main mechanisms can be seen in terms of fodder collection: Regulated and rotational grazing and cut and carry method. Different mechanisms for lopping of tree leaves and pods can be seen across villages. Some of the villages still have not allowed lopping of trees based on the condition of the resource and also problems associated with monitoring of such use.

In most of the villages, while crafting the rules and regulations, they take a very holistic perspective of the overall resources and the usage patterns. Understanding the overall resource base helps the village community in making choices, which may sound complex but are location specific and take a dynamic perspective of the socio-economic and ecological interrelationship.

FES in its initial work with TGCS learnt the lesson that motives like maximisation of revenue generation and income to the VI makes the distribution mechanism highly inequitable. This involves mechanisms like auction, which lets the highest bidder privatise a common property resource. Institutions, which aim to do so, can earn good amount of money, and there have been incidences where institutions have been offered between Rs 100000-200000 for an area of 50 ha. With clear membership boundary and primacy to needs of the villagers these motives are usually checked, but within the village also regular efforts need to be put in to form rules, which makes the resource available to all.

Usually in the first two to five years the plot is controlled for grazing by small ruminants. It becomes important then that ample grazing space remains open for the small ruminants so that they are not the one who lose out. Simultaneously it has also been a learning the communities would like to invest in by making different kind of plots. In some plots they would like to have intensive work done but on another plot apart from securing the rights over the commons they would like a different kind of intervention (seeding of grass with some soil and moisture conservation work with no plantation). What is important in the context is that there is high gestation period in resource growth, especially of trees, against which project interventions of 3-5 years is quite small in improving the biomass availability on


Operational systems at village level

De-facto membership, Membership enrollment processes (membership register), Token money from each household (Rs 1 to Rs 5, determined also by the amount required for opening account of the VI), Scope for latecomers (revisions after a time period)

Place of meeting: Hatahai, village temple complex, schools, panchayat bhawan, Alternative meetings in different habitations if the institution covers more than 1 habitation

Time of meeting: Night meetings, Day meetings in areas where drinking is more prevalent, Scope for flexiblity ( if the facilitating agency requires or in case of any other circumstance)

Day of meeting: No-moon day: when farmers don't use their equipments, Full moon day: as all households gather at a temple, Fixed day (as mutually agreed), On holi, diwali, local festivals.

Check mechanisms: Rules for violation: Fines for members not attending meetings (in some villages), Fines for members coming to meeting after drinking.

Representation from all households, Presence of management committee members, Presentation of credible village leaders/old persons, Representation of women, Presence of group leaders from different groups/caste (patels), Scope for revision and rectification by members, Presence of staff from facilitating agency (initial years), Scope for clarification by facilitating agency.

Facilitating agency meetings with women/women groups, Separate women meetings before village meetings, Previous resolutions discussed and approved in women meetings, On site meetings (meetings at work places), Meetings in different hamlets with different groups

Management committee as guiding and executive committee, Implements decision taken by general body, Accountable for financial transactions, Record keeping, Monitors and enforces decisions, Fines for violations of decisions according to resolutions, Facilitate village meeting

Labour opportunities to all families ( Rotation of households as per the employment opportunities), Continuous wage opportunities for poor households (identified by village and facilitating agency)

Monitoring of work by management committee, Periodic checking by facilitating agency

Shramdan-dharmata (voluntary labour contribution) for some common purpose (village roads, village temple, plantation on some day etc.)

Payments at common place in a village meeting, presence of all management committee members, payments by management committee members

Ora system (each household taking responsibility to protect the common land in rotation), Chowkidar (one or two village person appointed by village to guard the commons in peak agricultural season, in some villages this extends through out year), Management committee members (or a separate protection committee is formed) which periodically monitors the commons against rule violation or damage

Payments to chowkidar/guard: each household gives a fixed amount in kind or cash, or, the guard is paid once a year when the fees is collected from households for grazing or fodder collection is received

Rules for violation: Fines on cutting of tree, fines for grazing.

Table 7: Practice of rule making

Guiding principles

Universalmembership, Tradi-tional user group,

Common place:accessible to all

Timings which aresuitable to all(consensus based),

Monthly, As and whencalled in case of anyspecial circumstance,Before festivals

General body meeting(Supremacy of generalbody), Scope forrevision (flexibility)

Separate womenmeetings,Information flow

Executive role ofmanagementcommittee

Employmentopportunities to all

Work against norms,transparent systems

Collective action

Minimum wagesto both men andwomen

Functionalresponsibilityof institution

Self sustainingmechanisms

Rules for

Membership

Meeting rules

Decisionmaking

Physicalwork

Protection


all the village commons. T h e

Thoria

Dhuwadiya

Sanjadi ka

Badiya

Saredi Kheda

Jodha ka

Kheda

Amritya

Bharenda

Gudha

Gokulpaura

Cheetrawas

Dheemri

For cattle and buffalo price per animal range from Rs 35-50 in a good year, in drought period it is Rs 10 per large animal. Small ruminant holders pay Rs5-10 per animal for grazing. For last three years they have allowed lopping of tree on 50 ha patch. The institution gives it to a livestock keeper who deposits Rs 2500 for 50 ha. He in turns collect it from small ruminant holders who want leaves and pods.

For catlle and buffalo price per animal range from Rs 35-50 in a good year, in drought period it is Rs 10 per large animal. Small ruminant holders pay Rs5 per animal for grazing. For last three years they have allowed lopping of tree on 50 ha patch. The institutions gives it to a livestock keeper who deposits Rs 2500 for 50 ha. He in turns collect it from small ruminant holders who want leaves and pods.

Total expense incurred on chowkidar guides the price per livestock. Currently price of catlle and buffalo is Rs 6 per animal.

Rs 10 per large ruminant, Rs 5 per sheep and goat. Lopping of tree from commons fetches Rs 4120 (price per tree averages between Rs 5-20)

Rs 5 for a goat, Rs 10 for a cow and Rs 15 for a

buffalo

Rs 5 for big animals and Rs 2 for sheep and

goat

Rs 5 for big animals and Rs 2 for sheep and

goat

After the produce is cut and gathered, it is tied into bundles. Half the produce goes to the household who cuts the grass and half goes to the samiti, which in turn sales it within and outside village.

Rs 25-30 per household who contributes for

protection, Rs 50 for household who are quite far

from the plot, Rs 50 for households from outside

villages (in summer period if grass is still there)

Rs 10 per household for cutting grass.

Regulated and

rotaional grazing

(Cattle, Buffalo, Goat

and Sheep)

Regulated and

rotaional grazing

(Cattle, Buffalo, Goat

and Sheep)

Regulated and rotaional grazing (Cattle, Buffalo, Goat and Sheep)


Regulated and

rotaional grazing, cut

and carry (cattle,

buffalo, goat)

Regulated grazing

(cattle,buffalo,)


Cut and carry

(cattle,buffalo)

Cut and carry

Cut and carry

Trees on plot are

alloted to one or two

household who

distributes to all

members, Yearly

Trees on plot are


household who

distributes to all

members, Yearly

Trees on plot are alloted to one or two household who distributes to all members, Yearly

Trees on all commons are divided into patches, each patch alloted to different households with higher sheep/goat, Yearly and also some patches for two-three years

On one plot tree are


individual who

distributes among

those who require

Thinning and pruning

in 2-3 years

Thinning and pruning

in 2-3 years

No lopping of Tree

(Currently)

No lopping of Tree

(Currently)

No lopping of Tree

(Currently)

After 1 month of

monsoon; Tree lopping

in Nov-Dec and Apr-

may

After 1 month of

monsoon in one plot;

After 2-3 months in

other plot; Tree lopping

in Nov-Dec and Apr-

may

After 1 month in one plot; After Diwali in 2 other plots (After seed falls); Tree lopping in Nov-Dec and April may

After 1 month of monsoon in one plot; After 2-3 months in other plot (after Diwali), Very low rainfall: One plot is open for grazing, second plot is open after 15 day of last rainfall; Tree lopping in Nov-Dec and Apr-may

Grass cutting after 1

month of monsoon,

Grazing after grass

cutting; Tree lopping on

one plot in Apr-may

After Diwali and some-times after Feb-March (after fall of leaves of

Dhokra-anogessis pendula)

After Diwali

After 3-4 months of

rainfall

After 3-4 months of

rainfall

After 3-4 months of

rainfall

Table 8: Benefit sharing arrangement across villages

Mechanism for

Subject / Grass Tree (Leaves Time of PriceVillage and pods collection/use


village community understands this important constraint and wants action on different patches in phases, regenerating one patch then another patch. This clearly brings out the need to have broader understanding of space and time in which common property resources management should be placed.


IV. Origin of the Good Practice

18

Relationship between actors

An important change the practice brings is that that it places a strong village institution as an important actor within the system. In the absence of this institutional platform the actors were prone to more individualistic decision-making. With a strong institutional platform and collective action the conflicting interest groups within a village align for a common purpose: regeneration of commons.

The following table highlights the broad aspects of change in the relationship the practice brings:

After

Government, Panchayat, forest Department, Village, Landless households, farmers, livestock keepers, Village institutions (TGCS, CVS, VFPMC), FES, BAIF

Mediated by VI and facilitating agency, relationship are relatively strong and more aligned

Community has gained rights on some common property resources; government acknowledges the strength of village institutions in management of commons and supports institution in resolving conflicts. However largely it still views commons as an un-productive resource and stills aims to fulfill different objectives on commons.

Recognizes the community institution strength in regenerating forests (more support at top level), however, within, still a large group which doesn't feel that community should be allowed to manage forests.

Clear understanding of land categories on commons, demarcation of boundaries and removal of encroachment (mostly those which are very prominent and new), Collective action to protect commons, Less dependence of poor households on resource rich farmers for fodder, leaves, pods and fuel wood. Increased spaces for poor and deprived sections to participate in village decision making process. Improved spaces for women in village decision making processes.

Support role are minimal but the community act as resource groups and good practice examples to scale CPR governance.

Actors

Broad Relationship

Between government and village

Between forest department and village

Between different actors within village

Between facilitating agency and village

Before

Government, Panchayat, forest Department, Village, Landless households, farmers, livestock keepers

Weak and conflicting

No clarity of village rights on commons, Government usually feels that village has degraded commons, community feels that it other way round: Antagonistic relationship. Relationship of giver and taker. Commons used to serve factional interests.

Conflicting and usually the forest department accusing villagers and livestock keepers for degradation of forests.

Conflicting, people want to en c r o a ch common and increased orientat ion to privatize commons, nobody regulates tree cutting from commons, actors wi thin regularly try but fail to manage as interests and conflicts need mediation.

Facilitating agency supports institution building processes and develop capacities to manage CPRs

Table 9: Relationship between actors – before and after work

G O O D P R A C T I C E N O T E • C O D E : S A G P 0 2

Analysis and Cost of Start up Phase


BAIF is a national level NGO, registered under Public Trust with its head office at Pune, Maharastra. BAIF is working in Rajasthan since 1980 in the field of animal development and it includes Large and Small ruminants with the goal to increase the productivity of animals like milk, through technology of Artificial Insemination in non-descript cows / buffaloes. Beside this, BAIF is also involved in developmental activities in the rural area specially with the tribal population to enhance their livelihoods through active participation of poorest of poor (BPL) in the betterment of their natural resources like Land, Forest, Water, and most importantly the people. Under the Land based activities land treatment, improvement in cropping pattern, introduction of horticulture, agro forestry, Silvipasture, use of compost / vermicompost, Water harvesting / conservation and its optimum utilisation, SHG and IGA for women's with the help of State Government and international funding agencies. Main thrust is to improve income of the family and capacity building to manage the developed / improved resources for income generation.

Work on commons started with the long-term objectives of:

1. developing rainfed pasture on village common to create feed resources for livestock especially for BPL families.

2. demonstrating use of degraded village common to improve environment and income and nutrition of village communities.

3. developing programmes for women and landless labour through Self Help Group(SHG).

4. building local institution Village Management Committee (VMC) for sustainability of activity and strengthening of Panchayat Raj system (PRS),

5. reviving old culture for protection of village common for mutually beneficial purpose (Man/Livestock).

The short term focus under the project mode was:

1. To bring awareness about CPR i.e. village common.

2. To protect, develop and manage village common.

3. To introduce nutritious fodder grasses.

4. To produce fodder and small timber for meeting local needs for fuel on a sustainablebasis.

5. To check process of environmental degradation.

BAIF selected Bhilwara district for the silvipasture project as it is working in the field of Livestock Development programme since 1986 in 11 blocks through 28 centres and covering 614 villages for breed improvement programme with financial support from IRD department. Breed improvement activity is entry point activity in the village. BAIF Centre Incharge has a good rapport with farmers. Villages were selected on the basis of availability of community pasture land and people have clarity on the concept of development, co-operative and they are ready to remove the encroachments. They were ready / willing to constitute village management committee (VMC). A survey was conducted by BAIF's centre incharge and they identified 100 villages after field visits, group meetings in the village. Weightage was given to


villages where more number of BPL families were available. Finally 76 villages were short listed in 10 blocks with the consent of Sarpanch, Ward panch and villagers. The process of silvipasture development on community land was carried out from Dec.2001 to Feb.2002.


The Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) is a not for profit organisation founded during the year 2001. This organisation has evolved from the National Tree Growers Cooperative Federation (NTGCF), which was promoted by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) to improve revenue waste lands based on the successful dairy cooperatives model. The organisation is currently working in 1000 village organisations formed from about 125 thousand rural families and supporting natural resource management in about 75000 hectares spread in five eco regions in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

Work on commons has been a learning experience. One of the crucial learnings gained in the initial period while replicating the milk cooperative model for tree and fodder cultivation was that while milk cooperatives deal with private property trees were grown on common property resources. Simultaneously promotion of commercial species with disregard to local species had negative impact on ecological services and livelihood of poor households. An internal review and stock taking that took place within the organisation resulted in diversification of range of activities in the subsequent years. There was a shift in focus from economic aspects to social and ecological issues. Areas of operation have diversified from woodlots in revenue waste lands to improving grazing lands and forest lands, and watershed development.

First village organisational model tried was Tree Growers' Cooperative during the years 1989 to 1996. These TGCS were federated at the national level to form NTGCF. Motivation for choosing this institutional form was derived from the success experienced in promoting dairy cooperatives by the NDDB, which was the chief promoter in the initial years. Though this model was successful in regeneration of wastelands and improving productivity and economic value of these lands, there were concerns expressed about equity and social exclusion of poor from accessing benefits. The main problems identified were – 1. Common lands got privatized through this initiative and poor were deprived of the benefits from these lands; 2. Membership pattern resulted in domination of resourceful members in the cooperative; 3. Power got centralised at Managing Committee and Secretary; and 4. Auctioning of produce from the protected land has excluded poor from accessing benefits.

Realization of these issues during the internal reflection in the year 1996 coupled with organization's intention for diversifying activities into development of forestlands and grass lands resulted in forming other types of village organisations to match new requirements. In 1998 the first Chargah Vikas Samithi (CVS) was formed with villagers to improve grass lands. This is an informal organisation of villagers bound by agreed rules and regulations. During the years 2002 and 2003, another organisational form called Village Forest Protection and Management Committee (VFPMC) or Village Forest Committee (VFC) was promoted to deal with forest land development. This is a registered body under the guidelines issued by the local Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). The organisation's diversification into watershed development activities has resulted in formation of Watershed Associations from 1996 onwards. The type of Village Organisation chosen depends on the type of land available for development. In some cases different village organisations are present in the same village. In such cases, villagers are allowed to possess membership in more than one organisation. In


these villages Gramsabha is promoted as the supreme authority entrusted with the decision making authority and all the Village Organisational forms come under it. There is a long-term plan to synchronise all these Village Organisations with Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat to ensure sustainability.

Remarks

Highly degraded land with poor vegetative cover. The intervention cost was more as in addition to soil and water conservation, a lot had to be done in terms of tree plantation and fodder enhancement.

Moderately degraded site, focus was on natural regeneration and soil and water conservation.

Less work on soil and water conservation with focus on regeneration, plantation and seeding of fodder and tree species.


Less degraded site. Major emphasis on natural regeneration.


BAIF initiated silvi-pastoral work in this village. The average costs is higher as the initial plot was very small.

Moderately degraded site, focus was on natural regeneration and soil and water conservation.



Watershed work was carried out whereby the intensity of intervention is lesser in comparison to regenerated plot, thereby reducing costs per ha.

Sr. Name of Total Total Area Exp/Ha.

No. Village Expen- (Ha.) (Rs. )

diture* (Rs. )

1 Bharinda 8,49,581.00 70.00 12,136.87

2 Amritya 4,81,931.00 50.00 9,638.62

3 Sanjhadi 15,29,526.50 175.00 8,740.15

ka Badia

4 Saredi 11,49,597.00 70.00 16,422.81

Kheda

5 Chitrawas 12,02,621.50 224.00 5,368.85

6 Dhimri 9,44,832.00 68.00 13,894.59

7 Jodha 11,12,000 60.00 18,533.33ka kheda

8 Gudha 3,25,000 45.00 7,222.22

Gokalpura

9 Thoria 6,56,580 73.00 8,994.25TGCS

10 Dhuwadiya 3,35,766 40.00 8,394.15

Average cost per Ha. 9,814.21

Thoria - 94,89,543.40 4,561.00 2,080.58watershed

* Total expenditure means the total cost of physical interventions. It does not include overhead costs.

Table 10: Expenditure on Regeneration of Common Lands


1. Work on common property resources should address differentiation and discrimination within the village communities based on caste, class, gender, livelihood systems etc. This perspective helps in making the initiative of regeneration of common property resources pro-poor with special emphasis on the inclusion of the poor households in the institutional framework.

2. Strong and dynamic institutions which recognises traditional institutional arrangements, are location specific adhere to the broad principles of common property resource management, are more likely to survive and be sensitive to the needs of poor households and livestock keepers.

Understanding, recognising and positive appreciation of traditional institutional arrangements of ughai (boundaries in which people collectively contribute for certain activities), hathai (village decision making platforms), bani (sacred groves managed by community) etc helps in rejuvenating community actions. With trust between the facilitating agency and the village, these institutions also reform their practices (allowing women to sit on the “hathai” along with men - Sanjadi ka Badiya) and also adopt other practices, which makes institutional actions more gender sensitive and equitable.

This has been an important learning gained, as facilitating agencies work on commons. Under a project mode, with financial support from other agencies, usually take a very short term and linear perspective of institutional and resource growth (sometimes because of blue print approach and also due to targets which quantifies objectives and outputs within a very short term period). With more control at the hand of the community, in all aspects of resource governance, these institutions take a more holistic perspective of time and space. They usually approach different patches of commons differently, (for e.g. no plantation on a particular patch, silvipasture systems on another patch, dense plantation on another, open regimes on an another patch), craft rules and regulations for these different patches and usually have a more sensible approach to time required by the nature to heal itself.

3. The resource growth on commons is not linear and homogeneous. A range of factors, which change at village level, influences it. Even within a village two different plots have shown different resource growth. Though in many situations it might be important to think in terms of bringing all commons to a optimum productivity, an important learning has been that in areas with high dependence on commons by poor livestock keepers the resources growth across all patches can't be uniform as human actions shape the resource growth, the time it will take and the shape it takes. A silvipasture plot might not impress a conservationist with the growth and diversity it has, however the plot usually plays an important role in promoting diversity on an close by plot which is saved because it absorbs the pressure.

4. Secure tenure and assurance of benefits from commons are important to mobilise community for common property resources management. Tenure rights and rights to use a common property resources helps in clarifying and demarcating boundaries of common property resources which usually in a village situation remains ambiguous or a information

V. Lessons Learnt


of the few. These groups who know the different land categories in the village also are the ones who encroach on these lands or become influential in providing these lands to some households, becoming power center in the process.

With clarification of boundaries of commons this important source of power in the village gets eroded as the institution establishes governance on these resources. Across these locations this has resulted in cutting down encroachments on commons and brings additional spaces for livestock grazing by the community as a whole.

5. Strong focus on endemic species provides the livestock keepers a share in the growth from increased biomass availability: Livestock systems in these regions have emerged as a response to resources available on the commons. Of significant importance to small ruminants and even large ruminants are the tree leaves like Acacia nilotica, Acacia leucophloea, Acacia Senegal, Azadirachta indica, Anogeissus pendula, Butea Monosperma, Prosopis cineraria etc. In planning resources growth appropriate seeding of these species and protection of their root-stock makes a patch of common property resource valuable for livestock keepers.

6. Work on commons property resources of both land and water have a greater impact on the livelihoods of poor livestock keepers: Water and land are critical constraining factors in livelihood systems of households living in semi-arid areas. With institutions only concentrating on one component of CPRs, an important and interlinked aspect of resource regime is overlooked. With commons usually forming the uplands and situated on slopes, improvement in water retention capacity in these areas have indirect effect on farming system through increased ground water availability. Village institutions in certain locations have also formed rules and regulations to regulate the usage of groundwater understanding the 'common property' nature of these resources.

7. The success of common property resources management generally speaking is more possible in small villages (with total households less than 200-300). In large villages the success of institutional arrangement will depend on how poor livestock keepers can unite to form cohesive groups to whom the management of resources can be devolved by the village or the Panchayat.

8. Improved common property resources can provide opportunities for additional livestock keeping and also result in increased income opportunities.


he work towards conservation of commons and livelihoods are focused at:

• Protecting commons for their biodiversity, biomass and hydrological functions which are of critical value for the farming and livestock systems.

• Locating forests and natural resources within the larger ecological, social and economic landscape so that conservation is determined by the local context, where ecological restoration, social mobilization and poverty alleviation measures are multitudinal strategies aimed at conservation and improving local livelihoods.

The efforts towards protecting the commons provides immediate returns in terms of increased availability of biomass, improved soil and moisture regime, and where geo-hydrology supports recharge, an increase in the water table and an associated increase in area under cropping. With strong institutional arrangements, investments in common property resources can contribute to the improvement of the livelihoods, especially of the poor livestock keepers, with increased access over water and fodder. Besides benefiting directly from improved availability and access or palpably sensing equality in terms of low or no pricing for such produce, the restoration of commons is akin to land redistribution to the poor. This helps reduce the vulnerability of poor livestock keepers to environmental and economic uncertainties, thereby stabilizing the livestock sector. Improved commons also provide a strong collective and ecological foundation to further assist the poor livestock keepers in being the drivers of the livestock growth.

VI. Conclusion


T

The NDDB-FAO South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme (SA-PPLPP) SA

PPLPP is a unique livestock development program that aims to ‘to ensure that the

interests of poor livestock keepers are reflected in national as well as international

policies and programs affecting their livelihoods’. It endeavors to do so by a) creating

spaces for and facilitating dialogue among the actors playing a direct and indirect role

in the livestock sector of South Asia, and b) drawing from and using lessons from field

experiences to influence livestock-related policies, programmatic and institutional

changes towards the benefit of poor fe/male livestock keepers in the region.

To access SA PPLPP publications and other information resources, please visit our website at

http://www.sapplpp.org

FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) works towards the ecological restoration

and conservation of land and water resources, in conserving the uplands and other

eco-fragile, degraded and marginalised zones of the country and to set in place the

processes of co-ordinated human effort and governance to achieve this objective. It

undertakes work, either directly or with and through a range of democratic village

institutions, their federal bodies, and civil society organisations, (set up) through

initiatives that are ecologically sustainable, socially and economically equitable. The

foundation strives for a future that is based on a holistic understanding of the

principles that govern the interrelationships of various life forms and natural systems.

The central character of their efforts lie in intertwining principles of nature

conservation and local self governance in order to accelerate efforts on ecological

restoration and improve the living conditions of the poor. Over the years FES activities

have spread to 1402 village institutions in 26 districts of seven states. They are

presently assisting communities in protecting 96,933 hectares of revenue ‘wastelands’,

degraded forest lands, and Panchayat grazing lands, and crafting rules and regulations

in managing and governing the natural resources, common land and water bodies in

particular.

For more information on FES, kindly visit their website at http://www.fes.org.in/

BAIF Development Research Foundation’s mission is to create opportunities of

gainful self-employment for rural families, especially disadvantaged sections, ensuring

sustainable livelihood, enriched environment, improved quality of life and good human

values. This is being achieved through development research, effective use of local

resources, extension of appropriate technologies and upgradation of skills and

capabilities with community participation. BAIF is a non-political, secular and

professionally managed organisation. Various programmes are implemented by BAIF

and its Associate Organisations in more than 47,000 villages in Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan,

Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Jharkhand.

For more information on BAIF, kindly visit their website at http://www.baif.org.in/

GOOD PRACTICE OWNER and GOOD PRACTICE CHAMPIONS

A Good Practice (GP) Owner is a person/group of individuals and/or institution that plays

a crucial role in the GP. Thus, a GP owner understands all the ins and outs of the GP and is

often the initiator of GP.

Others involved in the Practice (not considered GP Owners) may be invited to assist in the

filtering and writing process. Such persons, who have insights into what makes the GP pro-

poor, are better-positioned to help influence policies. Thus, with their thorough

understanding of the GP, they (as an individual or as a team) can function as GP

Champions.

GoodPracticeOwners



GoodPracticeChampions

Authors: Sanjay Joshie, Rahul Chaturvedi, B.R. Patil

Reviewers: Amita Shah, Jagdeesh Rao, K.G. Tejwani,Lucy Maarse, Rita Brara

Content Editors: B.R. Patil, Lucy Maarse, Sanjay Joshie, Sheila Koyyana

Photo Credits: Foundation for Ecological Security

Publisher: South Asia Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme, a joint initiative of NDDB and FAO

Suggested Citation: SA PPLPP (2009) Code: SAGP02, “Innovations in Common Land Development: Strengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers”. Good Practice Note, Delhi, India

Design & Layout: Kriti Team, http://krititeam.blogspot.com

Printing: Satyam Grafix

SA PPLPP 2009

Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the National Dairy Development Board of India (NDDB) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitations of its frontiers or boundaries. The opinions expressed are solely of the author(s) and reviewer(s) and do not constitute in any way the official position of the NDDB or the FAO.

Reproduction and dissemination of material in this Good Practice Note for educational or non-commercial purposes are authorised without any prior written permission from the copyright holders, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this Good Practice Note for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission from the copyright holders.

Ajay Saxena, B.P. Singh, Subrat, Suresh Parashar,Harnath K

Contributors:

Innovations in Common Land DevelopmentStrengthening Institutional and Physical Spaces for Poor Livestock Keepers

SOUTH ASIAPro Poor Livestock Policy Programme

Good Practice Code: SAGP02

REGION : South AsiaCOUNTRY : IndiaSTATE : Rajasthan DISTRICT : Ajmer, Bhilwara, Bundi, Udaipur

BRACBRAC Centre75 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212BANGLADESHTel: +880 2 8824180-7 Extn: 2311Fax: +880 2 8823542, 8826448E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Department of LivestockMinistry of AgricultureThimpuBHUTANTel: +975 (0) 2 351102Fax: +975 (0) 2 322094, 351222E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

BAIF Development Research FoundationDr. Manibhai Desai Nagar, NH 4Warje, Pune 411058, INDIATel: +91 (0) 20 25231661Fax: +91 (0) 20 25231662E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Partnering Institutions

SOUTH ASIA Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme

About this Good Practice

An effective NGO-Community Partnership changes the landscape of a typical

dryland ecosystem in five districts in Rajasthan by increasing fodder biomass,

grasses, shrubs, trees, water levels and positively impacting on overall livestock

productivity. Unpacking this causality, this Good Practice reveals how management

of village dynamics, building awareness, finding local solutions and building

technical acumen can create ownership and equity in Common Property Resource

management.

Good Practice Note



Regional Office:

New Delhi - 110029, INDIATel: +91 (0) 11 2619 7851 / 7649 • Fax: +91 (0) 11 2618 9122

E-mail: [email protected]: www.sapplpp.org

NDDB House (6th Floor) PB 4906, Safdarjang Enclave

For copies of this publication, kindly contact the Regional Office or the Partnering Institutions

Innovations in Common LandDevelopment

good practise node - sagp02

Documents